Trump’s Trade Gamble Will Continue, Despite Supreme Court Rebuke

NYT Homepage

by Ana Swanson

February 21, 2026

AI-Generated Deep Dive Summary

President Trump has decided to continue his aggressive trade policies despite a Supreme Court ruling that found his use of international emergency law to impose tariffs unconstitutional. The court’s 6-3 decision invalidated Trump’s approach, but the president remains undeterred, vowing to pursue alternative legal methods to maintain and even increase tariffs. This move reflects Trump’s ongoing experiment with protectionist trade policies, which have seen little success in shifting manufacturing back to the U.S. or reducing the trade deficit. Trump’s tariff strategy has primarily disrupted global trade patterns rather than boosting domestic industries, as evidenced by rising costs for American companies. Despite this, Trump claims his policies are a success, citing record-breaking tariffs collected and asserting that the economic numbers support his approach. He even hinted at expanding tariffs further, suggesting new levies could far exceed current levels. The president views tariffs as a tool to combat globalization and reduce U.S. reliance on foreign products. However, experts argue that this strategy has failed to achieve its stated goals, instead creating uncertainty for businesses and potentially harming the broader economy. By ignoring the court’s rebuke and doubling down on his trade gamble, Trump is betting that political optics will outweigh economic realities. This situation highlights a significant shift in U.S. trade policy under Trump, prioritizing nationalistic measures over traditional free-trade approaches. The outcome of this experiment could have long-term implications for the global economy and U.S. manufacturing capabilities. As Trump presses ahead with his agenda, the debate over tariffs versus自由贸易 continues to divide opinion, making it a critical issue for readers interested in trade policy and its impact on the economy.

Verticals

newsgeneral

Originally published on NYT Homepage on 2/21/2026